Wish You Orwell

The government decided to lift the civil siege of Gaza in 2010. The Ministry of Security didn’t get the memo

On June 9^th 2011 MK Zahava Galon of Meretz sent a question to Ministry of Security, Ehud Barak. Galon wanted to know why Israel prevented women from leaving the Gaza Strip to Tulkarem, where they were supposed to participate in a workshop of the Palestinian Trade Union of Hair Stylists, and what is Israel’s policy towards Gazan women as a whole. She noted that since Israel only allows major traders to leave the Strip, and as woman in Gaza are generally small businesswomen, this is a de facto discrimination against Gazan women. She asked the following questions:

1. Why does the IDF continue to implement policy which discriminates Palestinian women and which is line with Hamas’ policy against women?

2. Why won’t the IDF adopt a uniform policy which will allow Gazan women to go to the West Bank for business or other reasons promoting their status in Palestinian society?

3. How does the current policy serve Israel’s statement it wants to undermine Hamas’ rule of the Strip?

4. How many egress permits were given to women from Gaza versus men from Gaza during the last year, for the purposes of business?

According to the Knesset’s regulations, a minister must respond to a question within 21 days, though he can ask for a delay of 21 more days. Galon’s question was presented in the beginning of June; She told me that the Ministry of Security – it’s not alone, but it’s prominent in this sort of abuse – has a policy of evading parliamentary questions. Galon had particularly harsh words for the way the ministry behaves when it comes to urgent requests by MKs; Often they receive an answer when it is no longer relevant.

In this particular case, Galon did receive an answer. Admittedly, it came on January first,2012, which is about six months since it was presented; Admittedly, it was not signed by the Minister of Security but rather by Matan Vilani, the factotum who holds a position no one held before – he is a “minister for the defense of the homefront” – which was evidently made out of whole cloth to provide him with a sinecure, but an answer was received.

Alas, it contradicts the government’s official policy on Gaza. Vilani, writing in his position as clerk for I-don’t-have-the-patience-for-this affairs for Ehud Barak, wrote that “on 19/9/2007 the Policy Cabinet decided […] that the Gaza Strip is a “hostile territory”, and that it shall be under severe limitations in the civil sphere, including the moving of people from the Strip and into it. In accordance with this decision, grounded in security and political reasons, the entry of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to the territories of the State of Israel is forbidden, unless in urgent humanitarian cases […] Yet we emphasize that the IDF and the GCAIT [government coordinator of activities in the territories, and IDF general – YZG] does not have a policy discriminating women in leaving the Gaza Strip, for business or for other reasons, everything [is being done] in accordance with the current policy.” My emphasis.

However, this comment by Vilani, the minister for receiving a ministerial salary affairs, contradicts a public statement by the Dear Leader himself, Binyamin Netanyahu. In July 2010 – that is, about six weeks after the Mavi Maramara attack – Netanyahu proclaimed that the “civil siege damages the security siege”, and said (Hebrew) that he ordered it lifted. Netanyahu also admitted he considered lifting the civil siege – which he attributes to the 2007 Olmert government decision cited by Vilnai – even before the flotilla events, but, somehow, he never came around to it. In that interview, Netanyahu also complains that the world treats his government’s claim that it lifted the civil siege off Gaza with skepticism. I can’t imagine why. Possibly this skepticism derives from the actual policy of the Ministry of Security and its penny-ante redundant ministers.

Note that Galon’s question was about passage from Gaza to the West Bank; Vilani’s reply was about entry into Israel. This is not the result of the fact Vilnai was never the sharpest herring in the drawer; Entering Israel is essential to movement from the Strip to the Bank, unless the Palestinian is expected to go to Egypt, travel from it to Jordan, and then cross from the to the Bank. This is Israel’s new excuse for its Separation Policy (mediniut ha’bidul, in Hebrew), disconnecting the Strip and the Bank. Anyone entering Israel from Gaza has already passed a stringent search. All the IDF has to do is send every morning one or two buses from the Erez Crossing to the West Bank, along with two or three soldiers to watch over them. It doesn’t. The excuse of “prohibition of entering Israel” is too easy.

In case anyone thought there’s any logic in Israel’s policy of travel permits between the Strip and the Bank, he should have a look at the table usefully assembled here by the Gisha NGO. It’s in Hebrew, so I’ll summarize.

Who pays the price for the Separation Policy? Orphans living in Gaza who lost one parent, whose other parent lives on the Bank; Assuming they have a “close family relation” living in the Strip, they’ll never be united with their parent. The Guardian of Israel shall not sleep, nor shall he wink; He will not allow the horrid danger of an orphan living with his surviving mother to materialize. Who pays the price? Gazans who want to embrace a brother who lost a son. Mind you, the Gazan is only considered dangerous as long as the dead relative is a nephew; Were his brother to die, he would, in the blink of an eye, shed all of his inherent dangerousness and be transformed into a trustworthy Palestinian, and be allowed to travel to the West Bank. Who pays the price? Poets, who – unlike soccer players, for instance – can’t travel from Gaza to the Bank. And this is right and proper: Poets ought to be feared. They are the ones who will weave despair and rage into a tapestry which will, eventually, overcome fear.

Keep that in mind, when next an Israeli official spouts the nonsense that “Israel doesn’t control the Strip.” We accept this abomination daily, out of ignorance and the will not to make waves. We supply the abomination with its guardiams. We are the ones allowing freeloaders like Vilnai to cover it with a mass of harsh, indigestible security-talk, falling on the ground like hail. We keep this policy alive – and, if there is justice in the world, will also pay the price.

Andrew Adler, a Chabadnik newspaper publisher, urged Israel to consider assassinating President Obama. By which he resolved a silly debate

Andrew Adler is the publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, and soon he’ll have to spare some time from his busy schedule to answer questions from Secret Service agents. Why? Because, when opining last week on just how Israel should deal with Iran, Adler unleashed a fantasy, and wrote that “[option] three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”

Wow. Adler has since issued a non-apology: “I very much regret it, I wish I hadn’t made reference to it at all,” he told the JTA. It is worth noting that Adler is a Chabadnik, i.e. a member of a religious faction which already showed an unhealthy interest in assassinations. Harry Shapiro, a Chabadnik, was convicted of planting a pipe bomb in a synagogue visited by Shimon Peres in Jacksonville back in 1997; And a leading Chabad rabbi in Israel, Dov Wolfa, has flirted (Hebrew) with the supporters of Yigal Amir, Rabin’s assassin. I think it is safe to assume that an Islamic movement with this sort of record would find itself under, shall we say, intense scrutiny by the authorities.

Now, no one would mistake me for a supporter of either the Netanyahu government or Israel’s out of control security establishment, but I am certain that had anyone suggested such a covert operation to Netanyahu, that person would be fired on the spot. And that even had Netanyahu entertained such an idea, the leadership of Mossad would submit their resignation rather than going along with the plan. What Adler wrote was a fantasy, unrelated to Israeli reality.

Which, alas, is true about much what Jewish American think of Israel. However, Adler did prove a point, albeit not one he intended: He showed us there are, in fact, American Jews who are “Israel-firsters”, that is people who put the interests of Israel ahead of their own country. In Adler’s case, to the point of supporting the assassination of his own duly-elected president – which skirts very closely to treason.

The fact that there is a debate on this issue – that such people exist – is silly to the extreme and assumes we are people with no sense of history. To put it in one word: Pollard. In two: AIPAC espionage. But we seem to be having just such a debate.

The usual suspects – the ADL and Jeffrey Goldberg, among others – have been whining for some time about the use of “Israel-firster” by a former Center for American Progress staffer. It is worth bearing in mind that this the second time in a short while neo-cons have tried to paint CAP as an anti-Semitic organization: Last month, former AIPAC spokesman Josh Block tried to stir a secret smear campaign against Matt Duss, a CAP staffer, trying to make him look an anti-Semite. Block’s plan was exposed and backfired; We have to wonder, though, if this is phase two of the same plan. (Full disclosure: Matt Duss is a friend, he did not have anything to do with the “Israel-firster” accusation, and I’ve been feted by CAP on several occasions).

Armenian Holocaust denier Abe Foxman of ADL and his ilk are pulling their usual deceit: They insinuate that when someone describes another as an “Israel firster”, he means to say that all American Jews are. Bullshit. The vast majority of American Jews will feel nothing but horror at Adler’s sick fantasy. Most of them would shudder at the idea of betraying their country like Pollard. A small number of them are, however, “Israel Firsters”: They put Israel’s interest – or, to be more precise, Greater Israel’s interest – ahead of their country’s. You can spot them easily: They generally doth protest too much about the usage of “Israel-Firsters.” But, truth be told, they are insignificant. Me, I’m much more worried about the Israel-firsters of the Republican party and the evangelist movement.

Jeffrey Goldberg’s case is instructive. An American Jew who emigrated to Israel and joined the IDF, only to realize too late what a horrible mistake he was making, he was very vocal on the issue. And then he found himself being asked a nasty question by his arch nemesis, Glenn Greenwald: Did you swear an oath of allegiance to the IDF, Mr. Goldberg?

Incredibly, Goldberg claims he doesn’t remember. That’s very strange: Every IDF soldier is forced to sign just such an oath – but Goldberg claims he doesn’t remember which pieces of paper he signed. As someone who was legally press-ganged into the IDF at the same time Goldberg volunteered to serve, I must say that piece of paper was very prominent.

Well, perhaps Goldberg’s Hebrew wasn’t up to snuff and he didn’t realize what he was signing when he did – but, let me assure you, not signing is not an option, unless you are willing to go to military prison. One of the members of my basic training platoon tried to pull this schtick, and was promptly jailed for two weeks. And rightly, too: You can’t be a member of the armed forces, get a weapon and military training, and not take an oath of loyalty. Orthodox Jews are allowed to say they “declare” loyalty instead of swearing it, but Goldberg didn’t take this option – This would be something he would have remembered.

But, even if Goldberg didn’t notice what he was idly signing (NOT a wise thing to do in the IDF, let me assure you), how could he have missed the celebration at the end of his basic training? They always end with the ritual taking of the oath, with an officer reading the oath and the soldiers, in the presence of their families, shouting back “I swear.” Is Goldberg seriously expecting us to believe he forgot this moment, one which many soldiers note as one of the most memorable of their service? How… conveniet.

Goldberg also seems to claim that, as his military service is over, he is not bound by that oath. That may or may not be the case – is Goldberg still on the rolls of the IDF’s reserves? – but this is not the issue. The point is that while Goldberg declined to serve in the military of his native country, he volunteered to serve in the army of another nation, and took its oath of allegiance. One could hardly think of anything more indicative of being an “Israel-firster” than this. That Goldberg realized that serving in the IDF is a mistake does not clear him – most of the IDF soldiers realized this as well, and unlike him, they were not volunteers.

Which should be born in mind, when next Goldberg calls people who speak the factual truth “anti-Semites.”

The HCJ supports Israel’s right to despoil the West Bank – but won’t allow its residents to marry Israelis

About two weeks ago, the High Court of Justice (HCJ) rejected an appeal by the Yesh Din NGO against the activities of quarries in the West Bank. Such quarrying seems to contradict international law, which forbids the exploitation of the resources of an occupied territory. The HCJ, led by the retiring president Beinish, rejected the appeal, citing some pretty strange reasons. One was that the quarrying is going on for some 40 years, and the court wondered why the appeal was made only recently, in 2009. Which means that yes, there’s exploitation, but it’s been going for quite some time, so that supposedly makes it OK. Another reason was that the quarrying is actually helpful to the Palestinian economy – which ignored the acknowledged fact that 94% of quarried stone and sand are exported directly to Israel.

The court made the absurd claim that according to the Oslo Accords, Israel is allowed to continue quarrying in the territories until a final settlement is reached. It did so while conveniently ignoring the fact that the Accords had an expiration date: May 1999. Almost 13 years have passed since, no final agreement was reached and none is foreseeable. The government of Israel – whose argument was accepted by the court – actually keeps saying that no such agreement will be reached. As for the Accords themselves, a long list of Israeli senior officials, prominent among them Prime Minister Sharon, have publicly said it is dead, it has expired, bought a farm, joined the choir invisible. Furthermore, as Yesh Din note (Hebrew), “international law expressly says that representatives of protected persons (residents of an occupied territory) may not renounce their secured rights (article 7 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).” (Actually, this seems to be Article 8.)

Absurd? Perhaps not. The HCJ further said we must consider the fact that the occupation is “prolonged” and that we cannot freeze the economic activity in the occupied territory until the occupation ends. This seems to be the first time since 1967 that the HCJ retreats slightly from its concept of the “held territory”, which it used so far, and actually updates it to reality. Its decision changes the status of the occupation from a temporary phenomenon – as a result of its temporariness we may, temporarily, suspend the rights of the local residents, since the “final settlement” will be soon upon us, though it may tarry – to the normal state of being.

Which is somewhat revolutionary, as the whole concept of occupation, in international law, is that it should be temporary, and as short as possible. The occupation of Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan, two marauding nations which were the worse danger to humanity aside from the Soviet Union, ended seven years after it began; The Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Syrian Heights (which was annexed in 1981) will soon celebrate its 45^th holiday. It is hard to see such a prolonged occupation, under which most of the residents of the occupied territories were born, as anything but an annexation; And it’s a good thing that the HCJ begins, belatedly, to recognize reality.

But wait. The HCJ recently made another, related, ruling. Last week, it rejected yet another appeal against the Citizenship Law. This law, voted in during the height of suicide terrorist attacks in 2003 as a temporary measure, forbids the residents of the West Bank from becoming Israeli citizens, even if they marry Israelis. The main victims, naturally, are Israeli Palestinians, who are prevented from marrying Palestinians residing in the West Bank. Or, rather, they can marry them – but such marriages will not grant their spouses Israeli citizenship or even residency. The majority ruled that while Israeli Palestinians do enjoy the right to create a family, which they affirmed to be a basic right, that right does not have to be exercised in Israel. You don’t say. I wonder how Justice Naor, who wrote this phrase, would view a decision saying that while she certainly have a legal right, as a woman, to equality, she is politely asked to exercise it in another country. One imagines she might have some objections.

So, when it comes to the exploitation of the territories, the HCJ permits it because the occupation is now “prolonged”; But when it has to decide whether Israeli Palestinians have the right to pursue happiness, it rejects it because of a temporary measure (prolonged time and time again), and says that, yes, they have rights – but the government may revoke them.

Which is to say that the occupation is eternal, as is the second-class status of Israeli Palestinians. Israel can keep pillaging the West Bank as if it has been annexed, as if it and the West Bank are one undivided territory, it may go on transferring settlers to the West Bank, and at the same time deny the right of Palestinians to move outside their designated zones. Journalist Amira Hess already noted that as far as Israel is concerned, there are four classes of Palestinians, each with its own limited rights: Israeli Palestinians, which are almost citizens but, the HCJ says, should seek their rights in some other country; Palestinians residing in Jerusalem, who enjoy (rapidly vanishing) residency rights; Palestinians residing in the West Bank, who live under military law; and Gazans, the most screwed of the lot, who receive the military occupation package deal + economic siege + drone attacks + particularly careless artillery fire.

So, according to the HCJ, what was once Mandatory Palestine is now inhabited by a religious group who has all the rights and by an ethnic group = who, coincidently, happen to be the indigent people – most of which rights have been denied. So, next time someone asks you why you think Israel is an Apartheid state, tell them the highest court in the land said so.

(Yossi Gurvitz)

Foreign Policy’s piece about Israel’s false flag activities reminds us that Israel has been supporting terrorists for a long, long time

Mark Perry’s piece in Foreign Policy detailing how Mossad agents recruited terrorists in Pakistan – members of the Jundallah organization – to carry out attacks in Iran is getting plenty of attention. Of course, that’s not how the story is framed: Oriented to the American public, its focus is on the fact that Israeli agents did as best they could to frame the US in their acts. But if you have a broader look than that of the Beltway crowd, this story should raise some awkward questions about Israel’s double standard on terrorism. It should be noted that Israel’s officials have unofficially denied the story, in a rather unconvincing manner.

Why is the story of the Jundallah operations, carried out according to Perry in 2007-2009 and reaching its climax in the late Bush years, coming out now? I think the best answer is that this is a signal from the Obama administration to stop its terror campaign in Iran. Another Iranian scientist was murdered this week, along with some members of his family, much to the delight of the Israeli media. The Chief of Staff of the IDF joked about “unnatural events” in Iran, and the media lapped it up.

The Jundallah operations were the domain of Meir Dagan, the former Mossad chief. Dagan, who held the position for eight years – only one man, Issar Harel, held the job for longer, and that was in the totalitarian age of Ben Gurion – became the favorite of doves who oppose a war with Iran since he is a vocal opponent of such a war. But Meir Dagan is not a dove: He is Israel’s Lord High Executioner. Ariel Sharon, who appointed him, said his specialty was “separating an Arab’s head from his body.” He was the commander of the secretive unit, Rimon, active in the Gaza Strip in the early 1970s and whose tactics included assassination of Palestinian activists; Dagan, which would make it to major general in the IDF, reported at the time to Sharon, who was commander of the Southern Command.

This new information puts Dagan’s assertion that an open war with Iran is inadvisable in a new light: Dagan was arguing not cessation of hostilities with Iran, but rather for continuing his silent war on Iran, instead of public escalation.

Iran and Israel has been locked in shadow-boxing for a few decades now. Shin Beth and Iranian agents duked it out in Lebanon, where both Israel and Iran maintained allied militias. Iranian intelligence was heavily involved in the attacks on Israel’s embassy in Argentina and on the Jewish Center there in the 1990s. It would take a decade for the Israeli public to dimly learn the reasons for the attack on the embassy. Four Iranian diplomats were murdered in Lebanon during the Israeli invasion in 1982, and the Iranians kept demanding information about them. The Israeli government kept the public from knowing about the incidents until one of the deals with Hizbullah – I think it was the Tannenbaum deal – when Israeli officially made a response to the Iranian demands: It claimed the four diplomats were captured and executed by the Falanges. How verrrry convenient.

Similarly, the news about a Hizbullah attempt to blow up the Israeli embassy in Bangkok should be seen in the same light: An Iranian retaliation after yet another Israeli attack on its territory.

Dagan’s shadow war with Iran continues a long tradition of Israeli intelligence to carry out terrorist attacks in foreign countries. The most celebrated ones came after the Munich murders in 1972, with Mossad assassins roaming Europe and Lebanon, looking for Palestinian terrorists. But it started long before that.

One of the most drawn-out political dramas in Israel’s history was the “esek bish” (“the mess”), which was the result of a botched terrorist campaign by Israel’s military intelligence in Egypt in 1954. The terrorists were ordered to attack American and British targets in order to, err, undermine American and British support for the Nasser regime, which didn’t exist. The terrorists were captured, some were executed, and the prolonged political mess would, in the end, serve as the excuse to finally unseat Ben Gurion.

The attacks in Egypt were a part of a broader strategy, dubbed the Minorities Strategy or the Periphery Strategy in the 1950s: Israel should support minorities in Arab countries and encourage them to rise up against the central government. Israeli agents were very active in the Arab world and Africa, stirring trouble. There is reason to believe (Hebrew) Israel was behind Idi Amin’s coup in Uganda, so it could maintain its line to the rebels in South Sudan. It supported for a long time the Kurds in Iraq – then, at the order of Kissinger, abandoned them to their fate. Many groups supported by Israel would engage in what would be described as terrorism; This didn’t bother the Mossad, or Israel’s leadership, all that much.

All of which should be borne in mind when Israel next decries terrorism.

(Yossi Gurvitz)

Settler leader Benni Katzover calls for dismantling democracy and “bowing to Judaism”. Can we finally discuss the treason of the right?

The veteran settler leader, Benni Katzover, was caught (Hebrew) telling some meshigene Habad paper, “Beit Mashiach”, that “I would say that today, Israeli democracy has one central mission, and that is to disappear. Israeli democracy has finished its historical role, and it must be dismantled and bow before Judaism. All the events nowadays are leading to the realization that there is no other way except putting the Jewish issue before any other issue, and that is the answer to all the situation and the threats.” Emphasis mine.

Referring to the struggle against gender exclusion, Katzover sailed on the seas of conspiracy, and said “The leftist activists are cooking timed campaigns against anything that smells of holiness, and they have two goals: One is political – undermining the government and gathering bonuses in public opinion, and the other is to act against all the foundations of Jewish faith.” It’s an interesting look into a leading settler’s world: On the one hand, gender exclusion is “holiness”; On the other, leftists are Erev Rav – Amalekites who pretend to be, or believe themselves to be, Jews, who are seen as such, and yet whose whole existence is undermining “anything that smells of holiness.” Katzover, when asked for comment by Haaretz, confirmed his comments.

Katzover gains a point for no longer pretending, as most settler leaders still do, that he values democracy. Religious Zionism, as that pig who shows his cloven hoofs so that people will mistake it for a kosher animal, always claimed to support “Jewish democracy.” As anyone who actually studied there knows, democracy is described there as a Greek construct, alien to Judaism. When democracy is spoken of, the rabbis kept mentioning the biblical injunction “thou shall not follow a multitude to do evil.” It would be interesting to know how many settler leaders think like Katzover, but do not, as yet, dare say so openly.

This isn’t the only time Katzover was mentioned in the news lately. On Friday, Shahar Ginossar – who is showing himself to be one of the bravest reporters around – showed in “7 Yamim”, Yediot’s weekend supplement, that Katzover, together with Gershon Messica, leads the “price tag” act. The two of them discussed the attacks on the IDF and random Palestinians openly on some intra-settlements publications, arguing that without “price tags” attacks, the settlers cannot prevent the removal of the outposts. The local council of Shomron, led in the past by Katsover and now by Messica, transferred funds – government funds – to the funding of what looks very much like “price tag” attacks. Messica and Katsover also avoided, time and time again, from denouncing those attacks.

You didn’t have to be a strategic genius to believe that the “price tag” activists, breathlessly described by the media as anarchists over whom the settlement establishment has no control, are in fact Yesha Council’s special forces. After all, the weapon the Council used to threaten the Israelis with for the past 30 years was the “extremists” over which it ostensibly “had no control.” Well, it seems at least some of its members did have control over them.

Will the Yesha Council cast out Katzover and Messica? That’s a funny one. Its disavowal of “price tag” attacks is only meant to keep it in its normal position – the political arm of Jewish terrorism. It’s time to remind people that the legendary Yesha leader, Ze’ev “Zambish” Hever, is a convicted terrorist. In the early 1980s, he tried to blow up a Palestinian activist, Dr. Ahmed Natsha. The device didn’t go off, and due to “health concerns” Hever – then called Friedman – got off with just 11 months of prison. Hever’s terrorist past didn’t harm him any, and that’s an understatement. At the time, of course, the leadership of Gush Emunim spoke of “extremists” just as it does now, while trying to conceal the metaphoric hissing fuse coming out of its pocket.

Yesha Council’s quiet support of terrorism is not limited to attacks on Palestinians. In January 1996, two months after the Rabin assassination, a yarmulka-wearing young man, Ohad Bart, tried to run off Meretz minister’s Yossi Sarid’s car off the road. He was then a Bnei Akiva instructor. He kept his status – which he wouldn’t if he’d been caught eating in a non-kosher restaurant – and ten years later, in 2006, he was a functionary of the Yesha Council and a candidate for the Knesset (!) on behalf of Ha’Ichud Ha’Leumi, one of the settlers’ parties.

We’re not finished yet. Katzover and Messica, and their local council, may have planned and funded “price tag” attacks, but today we learned (Hebrew) that the pogromchiks had a very prominent collaborator: MK Ze’ev Elkin, the chairman of the coalition. He does not deny passing information to the “price tag” people telling them where the army is not going to act, which allowed them to deploy their forces in a more accurate manner.

Now, Elkin is obviously not a spy, just as the “price tag” people who gathered information on the army’s activities aren’t. The question whether Elkin is a traitor, however – in the moral sense of the word, not, naturally, the legal one – is more complicated. Elkin took an oath to “keep loyalty to the State of Israel and to faithfully execute my calling in the Knesset.” When he gave information to the “price tag” people, which was supposed to derail military activity ordered by the lawful government – did he commit treason, or not? Let’s just say that Elkin is lucky to be a Jew and not an Arab; Otherwise the Knesset would already be discussing the removal of his immunity. As he is a Jew, it’ll be a surprise if even the Ethics Committee would bother itself with his perfidy.

So: We have a senior Yesha Council operative saying Jewish democracy must be dismantled or killed, while conspiring with another to support “price tag” attacks – aided an abetted by the leader of the right-wing coalition. Isn’t it time we asked some hard questions about the loyalty of the right, particularly the religious right, to Israeli democracy?

The Jerusalem police detained a seven years old Palestinian child and interrogated him for hours, in direct contravene of law

A long time ago, during the First Intifada, I was manning a shift in the Dir Al Balah Civil Administration ops desk, when a stupid army officer radioed me he detained a “riot ring leader”. I asked for the detainee’s ID number, so as to match it against the list of the wanted. The army officer said he didn’t have an ID. I told him to go to the guy’s house, because they usually left the ID there, and he replied, “no, no, you don’t understand – he doesn’t have an ID. He’s five years old.” Silence. “Repeat that. Did you say ‘five years old’?” “Yes.” I went to wake up my officer, who proceeded to shout at the army officer. The child was released.

Turns out we can do worse. Nir Barkat, the de jure mayor of Jerusalem and de facto military governor of Jerusalem, toured Isawiya yesterday, and the locals, taking a dim view, stoned his entourage (this is an old tradition in Jerusalem: Old King Alexander Yanai, while serving as High Priest in Sukkot, once upset the religious sensitivities of his subjects, so they stoned him with their citrons). Soon afterwards, reported the Palestinian news service Ma’an, policemen detained Muhammad Ali Dirbas, aged seven (7), carried him off to a nearby police station, interrogated him for three or four hours, and then released him. Further information, obtained by B’Tselem, shows that Dirbas was was detained by YASAM (riot policemen) at about 16:00, and was then moved to a police station at about 17:00. His father came to the police station circa 18:00, was kept apart from his child until about 21:00, and then Muhammad was interrogated in the presence of his father until circa 23:00, when they were released.

Where to begin? Well, with the fact the police has no authority over children. The age of criminal liability is 12. I find it very hard to believe the police would have detained a seven years old Jewish child – the public outcry would reach the heavens, and justly so. Dirbas is just a Palestinian child, so it’s hard to believe the Israeli media will pay too much attention to the story.

The practice of holding minor detainees without access to their parents or a trusted adult is very common: As B’Tselem reported back in July, the vast majority of detained minors in the West Bank were interrogated in this way – which is contrary to law. An incident in which cops “pick up” a six years old and take him to a police station, and then hold him there for hours without the presence of a family member, is much more similar to a kidnapping for purposes of terrorizing the neighbourhood than to anything resembling a proper police action.

Officially, Isawiya has been annexed to Israel. However, as this incident shows, the claims that Jerusalem is a “unified city” are a hollow fiction. The police would never have dared to act this way in a “normal” part of Israel. Eastern Jerusalem is an occupied territory and the authorities behave accordingly. It is also worth noting here that the notorious brute Doron Zehavi (AKA “Captain George”), who was dismissed from the security services for conduct unbecoming a torturer, is employed by the Jerusalem police as an “Arab Affairs Advisor.”

The Ministry of Education reprimanded a school for sending its pupils to the Human Rights March

The Ministry of Education sent a reprimand (Hebrew) to the principal of the ‘Ar’ara high school, which sent its pupils to the Human Rights March held earlier this month. The letter sent by the ministry complained, inter alia, that “the pupils were carrying signs against racism, house demolitions, etc., which is contrary to the CEO’s cyclical.” The ministry further promised an investigation.

In the school’s reply, the teachers quoted Minister of Education Gideon Sa’ar’s communiqué on the International Human Rights Day: “It is your duty as educators, who lead the pupils, to educate them that aside from the protection and defense of human rights, they are expected to show personal, social, civil and national involvement and responsibility. This involvement will led them to participation, and they are to believe that their participation will indeed contribute to the forging of the country’s way. Their right to participate is also their duty to show involvement and responsibility to the country and society.” Emphasis mine. One of the teachers told Haaretz that “A thousand civics lessons wouldn’t do what this one hour we were there did. The pupils came to me afterwards and said ‘We didn’t know the Jews were so kindly and good.’ Arab and Jewish pupils sang together ‘Arabs and Jews love each other’. It was amazing how they shouted together like that for human rights.”

The ‘Ar’ara teachers, alas, suffer from terminal naiveté. They should have known what Jesus knew about hypocrites like Gideon Sa’ar: That they should be judged according to the rule “Do as they say, not as they do.” Sa’ar’s actions – this reprimand – exhibit his real intentions much more than an official saccharine communiqué.

Furthermore, when the teacher says that her pupils shouted “Arabs and Jews love each other” – Doesn’t she realizes this is precisely what scares people like Sa’ar? Gideon Sa’ar does a masterful job at selling himself to the public as a relatively liberal education minister, and it must be said that unlike the previous Likud minister, Limor “the slapper” Livnat, he did not spend his youth in rioting in theaters which showed plays he did not like.

But Sa’ar, it must be remembered, is first and foremost Im Tirzu’s education minister; he spoke at their convention last year, decrying the description of “values education” as indoctrination and promising much more of it (Hebrew). He is the minister under whom the ministry disqualified a book for pupils about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because it contains two articles the ministry, and the minister, can’t live with: The right of every person to convert to another religion and the right of every person to emigrate to another country (Hebrew).

At the same time, Sa’ar ratcheted the indoctrination of pupils (oh, sorry, I meant “values education”) to a whole new level: He now forces secular students to study Masechet Avot, that concentrated volume of Jewish ignorance and credulity, which contains such pearls as “he who has many wives, will also have plenty of witchcraft”, and “Don’t speak too often with a woman; This is meant at a man’s wife, and even more so at his friend’s wife; And hence the sages have said: “Anyone who speaks too often with a woman, does evil to himself, and abandons the study of the Torah, and will end up in hell.” No doubt this will help Israel’s female pupils – a marginal minority of 51% – feel better about their place in society. Sa’ar is also the minister who made it a duty for every pupil to visit Hebron. And we’re not talking about some Breaking the Silence tour: No, this is an attempt at indoctrinating (err, sorry, “providing values education”) the pupils into believing that Israel must continue and rule Hebron.

So, truth be told, it’s hard to expect a minister who rejects the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because of the right to abandon your religion to show any tolerance towards human rights. Particularly when Jewish and Palestinian pupils exhibit no sense of shame over being able to overcome the walls of hatred. If we let this go on, we are in danger of educating pupils who might think – God forbid – that it’s perfectly OK for Jews and non-Jews to intermarry. And then where would we be? We must thank Sa’ar for exposing his real position towards human rights by sending that reprimand.

(Yossi Gurvitz)

Israel’s Propaganda and Diaspora Minister, Yuli Edelstein, said the Arabs are a “deplorable nation”. His spokesman: He meant every one of them

Israel’s Propaganda and Diaspora Minister, Yuli Edelstein, told a crowd in a public diplomacy event in Or Yehuda that “As long as the Arab nation continues to be deplorable nation, which keeps on investing in terrorist infrastructure, in educating to hatred, and in the welfare of the families of the families of the shaheeds, there will be no peace.” It can be seen in his Facebook page, here (Hebrew). The Hebrew epithet used by Edelstein, נפסד, is rather difficult to translate: I put it as “deplorable" but it can also mean “morally bankrupt.”

I phoned the minister’s office for comment, and asked his spokesman: “Are you aware of the fact there are some 80 million Arabs in the world, from Sudan to Syria?” He replied: “Yes, there are – and the minister meant them all.”

So there you have it: Israel’s propaganda minister (in Hebrew, he is called the Minister of Hasbara) believes each and every Arab is involved in rather deplorable actions. Seems that all you do, if you’re born an Arab. Why did his spokesman go an extra mile in confirming Edelstein’s comment? Possibly because Edelstein is an Yisrael Beitenu minister, and such comments play well with the base.

During the same event, Edelstein openly deplored racism – at least, some sort of racism. He was very angry about calls made by extreme ultra-Orthodox in Beth Sehemsh (see more here) towards policemen, displaying the tact and broad-mindedness we came to expect of our ultra-Orthodox brethren: “Nazis, go back to Russia.” Edelstein, himself a Russian immigrant, noted that he was jailed in Russia for Zionist activities and said “That’s not what I sat in prison with my Zion prisoners brethren for! That’s not what I made aliyah for! We will not let anyone social exclude others – neither because of gender or intra-Jewish ethnicity! The land of Israel belongs to us all.” It’s a good bet Edelstein would not realize his comments contradict each other.

(Yossi Gurvitz)

A list of questions to which, I suspect, I will not receive an answer

Last night I sent this long query to the IDF Spokesman, Radio and Internet Dept. I was informed it was forwarded to the New Media Dept. I will publish their reply when, and if, I receive it.

Greetings,

My name is Yossi Gurvitz, and I write for the Friends of George blog (in Hebrew), and for +972 (in English). Following the events of the last few days, I would appreciate an answer to the following questions:

1. In reply to a question how would have the colonel stoned by settlers reacted to being stoned by Palestinians, the IDF Spokesman, Brigadier Yoav Mordechai, said two days ago to Carmela Menashe (during the Ha’Kol Diburim program) that “I assume, Carmela, that you wouldn’t expect the brigade commander to open fire at a Jew standing in front of him, I am certain you didn’t mean that”.

A. Is this an official proclamation by the IDF of a policy of discrimination according to blood? If not, please supply an alternative explanation to Brigadier Mordechai’s words.

B. How does the IDF Spokesman expect the world media to understand this declaration?

C. Brigadier Mordechai said that IDF soldiers should not be expected to react violently to Jewish demonstrators. However, in the past the IDF has shot at Jewish protesters (Gil Na’amati, for instance, who protested the separation barrier), and have suffered excessive violence from them (such as when a stun gun was used against Yonathan Shapira). Given the facts, shouldn’t Brigadier Mordechai amend his comments to say “you wouldn’t expect the brigade commander to open fire at a right-wing Jew”?

2. Following the latest events, the IDF Spokesman announced (Hebrew) that “the IDF views with great alarm these acts, which are directed at it and its soldiers, and divert it from its main mission – the defense of the country’s citizens and residents. The IDF expects that the rabbis and the leaders of the Yesha Council strongly condemn this alarming behaviour.”

A. Is the IDF Spokesman aware that as the IDF is the sovereign in the West Bank, which is held as a territory captured at war, it is obligated to defend not just the civilians and residents of Israel, but also – and even more so – but also the residents of the captured territory?

B. Given that, and given the fact that Jewish terrorist attacks against Palestinians (nicknamed “price tag attacks”) are a daily occurrence, what does the IDF intend to do in order to defend the Palestinian residents from the settlers? Will it reinforce its forces in the captured territory? If not, why?

C. What is the statutory status of the Yesha Council? Given it has none, why does the IDF refer to it as a recognized body? What is the recognized status of the rabbis?

D. Assuming the Yesha Council and the rabbis will not obey the demands of the IDF, or take exception (such as saying, “we denounce the actions, but…”) what does the IDF plan to do?

3. According to some reports, attacks on IDF bases by settlers are carried out with the aid of soldiers who support the settlers, who also provide them with inside information in order to prevent the removal of outposts.

A. Is the IDF holding investigations in order to find those soldiers?

B. Assuming they are exposed, does the IDF intend to try them for treason and/or aggravated espionage? I wish to remind you former soldier Anat Kamm is serving four and a half years in prison after giving a journalists documents from the office of the Commanding General.

C. If the IDF does not intend to try them for treason and/or aggravated espionage, why not?

4. From time to time, the IDF enforces a curfew or an enclosing (during which movement within the settlement is allowed, but leaving it is not) of Palestinian settlements in the captured territory, for security reasons.

A. Assuming some Jewish settlements are known to the security forces for trouble-making, does the IDF intend to either enclose or curfew those settlements?

B. If not, why? Is it a part of the discriminatory enforcement of which Brigadier Mordechai spoke?

5. From time to time, IDF soldiers carry out nightly raids in Palestinian towns (during curfew), while mapping the inhabitants of each building and taking photos of them.

A. Is the IDF planning on extending this policy to the Jewish settlements?

B. If not, why? Is it a part of the discriminatory enforcement of which Brigadier Mordechai spoke?

6. Rabbi Elyakim Levanon, the head of the Hesder Yeshiva (*) in Elon Moreh, recently called upon his soldiers to refuse orders when ordered to particpate in events where women soldiers are singing; He further called upon them to be ready to die for this cause. This is not Levanon’s first instance of demanding his soldiers disobey orders: He did so in 1995, during the disengagement.

A. Does the IDF intend to stop recognizing Levanon’s yeshiva as a hesder yeshiva?

B. Does the IDF intend to demand the yeshiva remove Levanon from his position, it wants to remain a part of the Hesder agreement?

C. If not, why?

D. How would the IDF react to a university president who’d call upon his students to refuse serving in the reserves?

I would appreciate your prompt reply.

Thankfully yours,

Yossi Gurvitz

(*) Hesder yeshivas are part of an agreement which allows the national-religious to avoid most of the military service yet still feel superior towards the average Israeli. They serve for 16 months vs. the 36 required of most Israeli Jews, four of these months as reserve duty, and spend some 3 years more in their yeshivas, mostly being indoctrinated, indoctrination paid for by the government. It’s a nice, cushy deal, which allows a large number of religious soldiers to serve as one unit.

The IDF exposed its bias in treating settler pogromchiks and Palestinians protesters in diametrically different ways

Gotta hand it to the IDF. We could never have high-lighted its apartheid policy better.

Last night, three days after the killing of Mustafa Tamimi – who was killed by a 40mm grenade to the face by a soldier sitting in a protected vehicle – several young settler hoodlums tried to forcibly cross the border to Jordan, in order to create an outpost there. Ha’Kol Hayehudi, Israel’s equivalent of the Rwanda Radio, claimed their purpose was to remind us all that Jordan, too, is a part of Israel. Others said this was retaliation for Jordan’s participation in the crisis over a bridge near the West Wall.

Such an infiltration, if successful, could be considered to be a casus belli. The rioters managed to cross the security perimeter near the border, when surprised IDF troops managed to encircle them. At this point, an IDF Spokesman soldier told me last night, the brigade commander informed the rioters that “they won’t make it to Jordan tonight”, and that he was trying to convince them to go home. I asked whether this was a negotiation; The soldier preferred to term it ambiguously as “dialogue”. I asked why, come to think of it, they aren’t in cuffs already. He didn’t understand the question. I repeated it: After all, they are in a closed military zone and have attempted to force the border. Why aren’t they in cuffs? We don’t do arrests, he said. That’s not our department. Speak to the police.

I have seen with my own eyes people arrested and cuffed for the crime of entering a closed military zone. I have listened as a major explained patiently that the army has declared the entire village of Al Mu’asara as such a zone. I have seen the detainees being hooded and forced into military vehicle. Somehow, when it comes to right wing rioters in the West Bank, that doesn’t happen. Hours later, some arrests were made – presumably the police showed up.

Actually, we have some experience in the IDF rules of engagement when it comes to unarmed demonstrators trying to cross a border. You just have to ask the Lebanese and Syrians who overran the fences in the Golan heights or attempted to get near the border with Lebanon how the IDF treated them. A hint: The local brigade commander didn’t waste time on attempting “dialogue” with them.

Another incident yesterday took away most of the attention from the Jordanian border incident. A large number (some 300, we’re told) of yarmulke-wearing pogromchiks stoned Palestinian vehicles, stormed a military base, caused severe damage to equipment there, stoned a brigade commander and his XO – the stones were thrown into their command vehicle, no less – and managed to get away with it without having any pogromchik being shot in the face by a gas grenade. Actually, the IDF only managed to detain one of them. When military reporter Carmela Menashe asked the IDF Spokesman, Brigadier Yoav Mordechai, this morning how would the brigade commander react of he was stoned by a Palestinian, Mordechai answered (Hebrew recording, circa 12:00) that “I assume, Carmela, that you wouldn’t expect the brigade commander to open fire at a Jew standing in front of him, I am certain you didn’t mean that.”

And there you have it. The IDF’s official spokesman defines the apartheid regime in the West Bank. There are stone-throwers who may be shot, and there are some, those of the Chosen People, who can’t be. Same offence, same region, different reaction. I wrote yesterday in my Hebrew blog that the IDF has metamorphosed into a gang of frightened gunmen; But the main problem is the cowardly officers leading them. Oh, they don’t lack for physical bravery; They’ll charge a machine gun nest without thinking twice (the fact that the IDF is familiar with only manouver, the charge, is a problem for another post). But they have not a shred of civic courage. They know what damage the settlers can do to their careers. They know that gang of settlers can besiege their houses and intimidate their families. So they retreat, and let the enemies of Israel win; They turn the IDF into the SSA, the Settlers’ Service Army.

For decades, the IDF repeatedly claimed that it is not a political entity, and that it does “choose its own missions.” Those arguments were used against conscientious objectors from the left. But, as we see, the IDF knows perfectly well to choose its missions: Defending lands stolen by the settlers near Nabi Salah, while shooting the demonstrators? Sure thing, it’s our pleasure. Defending Palestinians from “price tag” pogroms? Fuggetaboutit, we’re now the Czar’s police. Defending itself from Jewish rioters? “I assume, Carmela, that you wouldn’t expect the brigade commander to open fire at a Jew standing in front of him, I am certain you didn’t mean that.”

We should thank the IDF Spokesman for his frankness. We should thank him for making it clear that, like the rabbis eating it from within, it reacts to events according to the blood of the people involved. If someone still had a doubt whether serving in the Settlers’ Service Army might be immoral, consider it removed. And, to quote one of my readers: The IDF Spokesman should be viewed through the same lens Arafat’s speeches were viewed – that is, we should pay attention to what it says to its own public in Hebrew, not to what it says to the world in English.